We were discussing what had gone before: your "Their quote!"

Post #381,016 by CRConrad 9/20/13 12:08:40 AM Reply	We were discussing what had gone before: your "Their quote!" I asked you my questions first; you answer my questions first. Oh, and what you're doing is more squirming. It doesn't make you look better; only even less like a man and more like a weasel. -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #381,034 by boxley 9/20/13 8:50:56 AM Reply	here is something even you might understand Obamacare is so beloved by all except for those who dont want to be covered by it and want waivers which were granted for the most part by the Obama administration, not the teabaggers Others who want the law rewritten For Profit Corporations (easy one there) Non Profits who have to lay off and cut hours because of this act Government employees of the people who wrote the damn law want out Unions are completely pissed and don't want to pay AFLCIO for example Even the fucking communists dont want the law Now every group in America except poor people and maybe the communists are trying to get out of paying for this and somehow you are still in love with it. Get a clue Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,037 by mmoffitt 9/20/13 9:51:26 AM Reply	One Communist responds. It's not that I object to being forced to pay for health insurance. It's that I object to paying 20 cents on the dollar for health insurance that I am not going to get and that will be redirected to the fucking shareholders. What I'm asking for is the ability to buy into Medicare early, with my pre-tax income. Shit, the billing infrastructure is already in place for $DEITY's sake: the medicare payroll tax. Increase it appropriately and let me drop the private health insurance pre-tax payment I also make. I haven't crunched the numbers but I doubt very fucking seriously that if this was done, my take home pay wouldn't increase! And for my misguided Capitalist friends - think of the fucking boon to businesses. They'd be completely off the hook for buying private health insurance for their employees. Only in America could this simple solution evade our legislators.
Post #381,040 by boxley 9/20/13 9:57:37 AM Reply	yup, my solution as well and to assuage the tea baggers make that increase with pretax money Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,044 by Another Scott 9/20/13 10:15:28 AM Reply	Some people want out of Social Security, also too. Doesn't mean that is good policy. Loud noises from the usual suspects doesn't mean that "every" one or every group is in that fringe, either. People can believe lots of things, especially when they're told lies by people who don't like a policy for reasons that have nothing to do with the effectiveness of the actual policy itself. Cheers, Scott.
Post #381,045 by mmoffitt 9/20/13 10:43:45 AM Reply	Dons Devil's Advocate Hat: It worked great for my dad. TALB (Teacher's Association of Long Beach) members didn't pay into the Social Security Trust Fund, instead they paid into a defined benefit pension fund. My late father took a reduced amount so that should he precede my mother in death (which he did) she'd continue receiving partial pension payments. The amount she is receiving is $2,800.00/month after taxes. He was getting around $3,200.00/month while he was alive.
Post #381,048 by boxley 9/20/13 1:53:35 PM Reply	I know government employee's wanted out of SS glad I am not holding my breath for pers Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,055 by CRConrad 9/20/13 4:01:09 PM Reply	Squirm squirm squirm, ever more the weasel.
Post #381,066 by boxley 9/20/13 5:23:59 PM Reply	gotcher suppah, swingin Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,070 by CRConrad 9/20/13 5:53:11 PM Reply	Huh? Sorry, you'll have to use more than the subject line. Because that bit of gibberish was far too fucking terse; I haven't the first fucking clue as to what you're gibbering about. (Not that I'm too sure you do, either.) Soooo... Feeling real manly as you're squirming on there, Weasel Boy? -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #381,074 by boxley 9/20/13 7:26:04 PM Reply	apparently you are not a jack nicholson fan or it didnt translate correctly into suovi when they released the movie over there. It's an American Naval term Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,082 by CRConrad 9/21/13 7:35:04 AM Reply	WTF does that have to do with anything? Squirm squirm... Dunno what "suovi" is, but in case you forgot: 1) You posted your mangled irrelevant "quote" in English, and I read it in English. 2) I've spoken English about twice as long as SuoMi, i.e, ~forty years vs ~20, and still speak, read, and understand it better. 3) It just didn't register as a quote because a) what's the relevance?, and b) coming from you, it was probably too mangled to be recognizable. 4) Here's a slightly less irrelevant Jack Nicholson quote for you: "The truth? You CAN'T HANDLE the truth!" Not to the extent of admitting it, at least, now can you? Squirm on, weasel boy. You're looking ever more like roadkill. (Was that the "swinging supper" you had Nicholson talking about? Then it seems you are supper.) -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #381,084 by boxley 9/21/13 9:07:08 AM Reply	Oh joy, the german genes have hardened his neurons In a movie called "the last detail" Jack plays a swabbie who is detailed (where the name came from) to take some poor scmuck to jail for an extended sentence for a minor crime. One of the phrases he uses in a distinct new england accent is "I got your suppah swinging" Lets disect the frog here for the round boy. "I got yer suppah" refering to the fact that your evening meal is being supplied by the speaker of the phrase. "Swingin" means that the evening meal is swinging freely on the speaker. In the case of a male, the only thing usually swinging is a penis, non turgid or it would be "I got yer suppah, stabbin" Perhaps you have heard of the more common phrase, "blow me" Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,088 by Another Scott 9/21/13 9:25:34 AM Reply	Oh, beehive. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0396752/ Cheers, Scott.
Post #381,101 by CRConrad 9/21/13 4:27:27 PM Reply	Squirm squirm... I'll take that as an admission of defeat. If "blow me" is all you can come up with, you've obviously given up on an actual argument. Now, since you can't apparently admit your by-now obvious-to-all defeat, then can't you at least just stop squirming and shut the fuck up, so I won't have to point out for each bit of squirming you do that that is what it is? Because if you imagine that any of these squirms of yours will be the last word in this discussion, you've got another think coming, Weasel Boy. -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #381,102 by Another Scott 9/21/13 4:39:53 PM Reply	You beehive, too. No sense in pulverizing the dead horse. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #381,104 by CRConrad 9/21/13 4:42:48 PM Reply	Yeah, sure... As soon as he does.
Post #381,108 by boxley 9/21/13 6:14:26 PM Reply	how far can you rightshift? http://images.wikia....8312-1360-768.jpg Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,110 by CRConrad 9/21/13 6:22:37 PM Reply	As far as you can squirm, plus one more to nail you. Who the fuck was that tubby guy, and what does he have to do with you answering these questions: * Do you, or do you not, know that fat-cat capitalists like to cut down on wages to increase their own profits? * Have you, or have you not, often opined to that effect here? * Are American entrepreneurs and CxO-level executives, or are they not, just as prone to lie as you or I, or for that matter as President Obama? * So is "Their Own Quote!", or is it not, fucking useless as an argument when it comes to establishing the _truth_ of that quote? Yes or no answers only. OK, except for Tubby's name... Naah, come to think of it, since that has fuck-all to do with anything -- squirm squirm squirm -- I don't give a fuck. Just yes or no on the above, please. And stuff Tubby and Nicholson and whatnot up your arse where you pulled them from. -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #381,112 by folkert 9/21/13 7:19:53 PM 9/21/13 7:20:39 PM Reply	Glenn Shadix Or Otho in Beetlejuice -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec Edited by folkert Sept. 21, 2013, 07:20:39 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #381,113 by boxley 9/21/13 7:26:29 PM Reply	gee, you build a straw army and cry when I dont want to play Otho or roundboy is his name quit your own squirming, when did you quit beatying your wife, yes or no Name one person that the affordable care act will benefit, and dont snivel poor people can get health care, because a guy/girl single partnered kids no kids cant afford any extra costs out of their minimum wage checks. Don't bother with saying the government will subsidize it either because that money isn't there on 10/1 when the exchanges go live. There is a lot of benefits alright, healtch care companies make money, IT contractors make money and the id theft artists, scam artists, medical fraud grifters are slaverying to get thru the pipeline to the backend health data of all Americans. For you to sneer that government regulations are free of cost to the regulated is typical euro vaporing, nothing more. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,114 by folkert 9/21/13 7:37:49 PM Reply	It'll benefit me... Once the republican's quit fighting it. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #381,116 by boxley 9/21/13 8:37:08 PM Reply	so on 10/1 you will be on the exchange? From what you have said before, you need a break. Hope you get one. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,135 by folkert 9/22/13 9:20:35 AM Reply	Nope didn't say that. And I meant, that once Republicans stop fighting it and it finally gets the plans it needs and the Single Payer part finally gets put in... Then it'll benefit me. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #381,147 by boxley 9/22/13 11:27:15 AM Reply	you do remember it was the WH that pulled the government option don't you? The reason they pulled it was not because of just republicans. it was members of the democratic party that balked on it. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,152 by folkert 9/22/13 1:42:49 PM 9/22/13 1:44:05 PM Reply	Yes I do... Because it was the ONLY way to get PPACA through with the Republican blustering and it was because of the Blustering the Democrats were faltering. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT!? -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec Edited by folkert Sept. 22, 2013, 01:44:05 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #381,156 by boxley 9/22/13 1:52:43 PM Reply	democrats falter at bluster? hoodah thunkit? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,136 by CRConrad 9/22/13 9:31:16 AM Reply	MY "squirming"?!? Did you ask me something first, or I you? Six-hundred-umpty-twelve posts later, you're STILL gibbering about any old bullshit you can pull out of your arse. (Pull your head outta there, then you won't find such a fucking lot of irrelevant stuff.) You know what a MAN -- as opposed to a weasel -- would have done? He would have said, "Damn, I don't have any good answers to those. In light of this, it seems I was wrong." That what separates men from weasels: One kind has the balls to admit it when they're wrong; the other just squirms endlessly. I used to think you're a man. -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #381,145 by boxley 9/22/13 11:03:57 AM Reply	soon as you tell me whether you quit beating you wife yes/no I have plenty of good answers but you are from a mindset that creating jobs is a govenment function only and that government regulation never costs people their jobs. Lots of studies that say otherwise. You wont read them because it doesnt fit your preselected notions. Here is one http://www.manhattan...ny_02092011PH.pdf PPACA will Increase the Deficit, Not Reduce It PPACA will Increase Insurance Costs and Reduce Employment Regulatory Uncertainty under PPACA will Hinder Job Creation if your idea of a man is one who will kiss your ass everytime you inform him he needs to, guess I am proud not to be that man Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,148 by Another Scott 9/22/13 11:38:16 AM Reply	Manhattan Institute? Really? http://centerjd.org/...nhattan-institute The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research is an extremely conservative, corporate-funded, New York-based policy group. They've got an agenda to shape and push. The nonpartisan CBO says the ACA will reduce the deficit. http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176 In March 2010, CBO and JCT projected that the provisions of the ACA related to health insurance coverage would cost the federal government $759 billion during fiscal years 2014 through 2019 (which was the last year in the 10-year budget window being used at that time). The newest projections indicate that those provisions will cost $710 billion over that same period. As shown in the figure below, the intervening projections of the cost of the ACAÂs coverage provisions for those years have all been close to those figures on a year-by-year basis; of course, the 10-year totals have changed as the time frame for the estimates has shifted. Those amounts do not reflect the total budgetary impact of the ACA. That legislation includes many other provisions that, on net, will reduce budget deficits. Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #381,150 by boxley 9/22/13 12:43:37 PM Reply	what does the CBO say about job creation, loss or retension? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,153 by Another Scott 9/22/13 1:44:11 PM Reply	Dunno. I don't think they were asked that question. I like OzarkHillbilly's take on the terms - http://www.balloon-j.../#comment-4625903 30. OzarkHillbilly says: September 21, 2013 at 9:41 am @Patrick: Look at how well the far right has managed to change the ugly word ÂrichÂ to the nicer word Âjob-creatorÂ. The battle is won and lost with language. That is why everytime you hear or read words like Âjob-creatorÂ you have to attack the fallacy of such things. There are NO job creators. People DO NOT create jobs and if they do, then they DESTROY jobs as well. They do not get credit for the good if they will not take credit for the bad. The rich are only Âwealth aggregatorsÂ. Good economies create jobs. Bad economies destroy them. And wealth aggregators prosper either way. Werd. Companies hire when they have to, not out of the goodness of their hearts. Greater, affordable, insurance access benefits people and society as a whole. The benefit to companies and wealth aggregators is also there, but secondary. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #381,160 by Ashton 9/22/13 2:29:28 PM Reply	Now if we could print that on lots of foreheads..
Post #381,165 by boxley 9/22/13 4:45:28 PM Reply	ok Companies hire when they have to, not out of the goodness of their hearts. Greater, affordable, insurance access benefits people and society as a whole. The benefit to companies and wealth aggregators is also there, but secondary so regulattions wer5e contrived so that those folks doing the hiring see the most beneficial thing is to hire more partime folks, reduce hours for others and watch that they dont go over 50 employees. That does NOT benefit joe working class and does harm to folks. You and others claim that those regulations do not do that. You are wrong. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,167 by Another Scott 9/22/13 5:46:19 PM Reply	There are costs and benefits. Like everything in life. The 50 employee cutoff relates to potential penalties. And it's equivalent employees - you can't get around it by having 49 FT and as many part-time as you want. Having 99 part time people to try to stay under 50 full time equivalent people is unlikely to be terribly efficient. The people who wrote the law weren't stupid. They knew some employers were going to try to game it. That's why they consider lots of things... http://www.fosterswi...on-Threshold.html PPACA THRESHOLD FOR COVERAGE Under the PPACA, employers with at least 50 full-time equivalent employees will be labeled as "large" employers. They will face penalties, beginning in 2014, if one or more of their full-time employees obtains insurance through a health care Exchange and qualifies either for a premium credit or a cost share reduction. [IOW, it's a way to claw-back the cost of the subsidy that the company is trying to foist onto the public.] A "large employer" is defined as one with more than 50 full-time equivalent employees during the preceding calendar year. Both full-time and part-time employees are included in the calculation; "Full-time" employees are defined as those working 30 or more hours per week; "Full-time" excludes seasonal employees who work less than 120 days during the year; Part-time employeesÂ hours as a group are included in the calculation also. Hours worked by part-time employees (those working less than 30 hours per week) are included by, on a monthly basis, dividing their total number of monthly hours worked by 120. for example, a firm with 35 full-time employees (30+ hours), also has 20 part-time employees who all work 24 hours per week (so each employee who works 24 hours per week, works a total of 96 hours per month). These part-time employeesÂ hours would be counted as the equivalent of having 16 full-time employees, as follows: 20 employees x 96 hours per month per employee /120 = 1920/120 = the equivalent of 16 "full-time" (30+ hours a week) employees. HOW PENALTIES APPLY AND ARE CALCULATED Regardless of whether a large employer offers coverage, it will only be potentially liable for a penalty beginning in 2014 if at least one of its full-time employees obtains coverage through a health care Exchange and qualifies for either a premium credit or a cost share reduction. To qualify for premium credits in an Exchange, the employee must meet certain eligibility requirements, including that the employeeÂs required contribution for self-only health coverage (through the employer) exceeds 9.5% of the employeeÂs household income, or if the plan offered by the employer pays for less than 60% of covered expenses. In sum, part-time employees and their hours worked count toward the 50 full-time employee threshold, but if they obtain health insurance through an Exchange, that wonÂt trigger a penalty against their employer. If an employer does not offer insurance, but a full-time employee obtains insurance through a health care Exchange, the penalty calculation against the employer is $2,000 per year multiplied by the number of full-time employees, excluding the first 30. If an employer offers insurance, but full-time employees enter the Exchange, the penalty is the lesser of (1) $3,000 annually for each employee entering the Exchange, or (2) the penalty calculated for employers not offering insurance at all ($2,000 per year x the number of full-time employees, excluding the first 30). If the company has insurance that is appealing enough that no FT workers go into the exchange or no FT employees qualify for a subsidy, then there is no penalty. http://www.nfib.com/...date-calculations Employer Mandate Penalties Depend on Four Questions. (1) Is this employer ÂlargeÂ or ÂsmallÂ? (2) If the employer is large, does it offer qualified health insurance to virtually all full-time employees (FTs)? (3) How many, if any, FTs receive subsidies in the health insurance exchanges? (4) If the employer is large and has at least one subsidized FT, how much does it owe in annual penalties? The different calculations use different sets of data from varying subsets of employees. In this context, a large employer is one where FTs and full-time equivalents (FTEs) sum to 50 or more. Again in this context, an FT is one who works 130 hours per month or more Â roughly 30 hours per week. Each 120 hours per month of part-time and seasonal labor comprises one FTE. The health insurance offered by employers must be Âqualified,Â meaning that it meets requirements laid down by federal and state authorities. Among other things, qualified coverage must cover at least 60% of employeesÂ healthcare costs on average. For small employers, policies must cover Âessential health benefits,Â as defined by federal and/or state authorities. For an FT to qualify for subsidies in the individual insurance exchanges, several things must be true: (1) The employeeÂs household income must fall within a certain range. (2) The employer does not offer coverage that is judged qualified and affordable for this employee. (3) The employee must actively reject the employerÂs coverage and request subsidies from the exchange. Note: To avoid penalties, the employer must offer coverage to FT employeesÂ dependents, but there is no requirement that their coverage be affordable. If an employer doesnÂt offer FTs insurance (or offers non-qualified/inadequate coverage), and if at least one FT receives federal insurance subsidies in the exchange, the business will pay $2,000 per FT (minus the first 30). Example: a business with 50 FTs, two of whom are subsidized, would pay $40,000 = $2,000 x (50 Â 30). If an employer offers insurance and at least one FT receives insurance subsidies, it pays the lesser of $3,000 per subsidized FT OR $2,000 per FT (minus the first 30). So an offering employer with two subsidized FTs would be fined $6,000. For a 50-employee employer with 14 or more subsidized FTs (above the tipping point for an employer of this size), the penalty would be $40,000. The point, it seems to me, is to make sure that companies with more than 50 FTE make insurance available to all their FTs. The government doesn't want FTs dropping out of company plans and turning to subsidies in the exchanges. So if a company has 51 FTEs and it only offers insurance benefits to some of the FT employees, then they will have to pay a penalty if even one of those FT people gets insurance in the exchange and gets a subsidy. If, on the other hand, they don't offer insurance at all, they'll still have to pay a penalty if a FT employee enters the exchange and gets a subsidy. Tyrrany!!!11 There are obviously ways for companies to get around the penalties. One good one is to pay their employee enough so that they don't quality for the subsidy. Another is to make their insurance benefit good enough that none of the FT people are tempted by the exchange (even if they qualified for a subsidy). It looks like a single person working at a company that does not offer coverage could make at most $33,030 in 2014 before losing any subsidy: http://kff.org/inter...0&child-tobacco=0 For a household with 4 people including 2 kids under 21, the income threashold is just below $46,000. (There are huge subsidies for the family below that cutoff.) tldr; it's not the PPACA requiring insurance coverage for large employers that leads to the potential for a penalty. It's having a FT going into the exchange and qualifying for a subsidy that can lead to a penalty. FWIW. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #381,169 by boxley 9/22/13 7:13:50 PM Reply	There are costs and benefits. in the news there is a lot more talk about cost than benefit and the cost is being squarly dropped on the working class. http://www.wsbtv.com...ause-obama/nZw5N/ Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,170 by Another Scott 9/22/13 9:06:01 PM Reply	There's lots of news on the other side, too. http://finance.yahoo...nk-210354500.html A two-parent family with two kids and a $50,000 income could get a $10,000 plan for $3,365, with subsidies covering 66% of the cost. ThereÂs one catch: You only qualify for such deals if youÂre not able to get coverage through your employer. So if youÂre a part-timer whose company canceled your watered-down insurance coverage, it may have actually done you a favor. Trader JoeÂs is one employer known for offering generous health care benefits, even for part-timers (until now). But even those workers could end up better off under Obamacare. In an internal email published by the Washington Post, a Trader JoeÂs exec provided some calculations for a part-time employee who earns about $24,000 per year and has been paying about $167 per month as her share of a Trader JoeÂs policy similar to a ÂsilverÂ plan under the ACA. If she enrolls in Obamacare, the subsidized cost would fall to about $70 per month for nearly identical coverage. And thatÂs before a $500 annual stipend Trader JoeÂs plan to offer part-timers to help them pay for insurance. http://www.cbsnews.c...t-to-keep-hiring/ (MoneyWatch) Although chief financial officers routinely express concern about the impact of the Affordable Care Act on their companies, they also expect hiring conditions to improve over the next 12 months, a new survey shows. Despite concerns over the expected impact of Obamacare when it take effect next year, the executives said they expect to increase the number of full-time employees hired by their companies by 1.8 percent, according to a new Duke University/CFO Magazine poll of CFOs at 530 U.S. companies. [...] More than 9 out of 10 businesses subject to the law already offer health coverage, while companies with fewer than 50 employees are exempt (About 60 percent of these smaller firms offer health insurance, and under the ACA they also may qualify for a tax credit for offering coverage.) Of the 28 million small businesses in the U.S., 96 percent won't be subject to the rules, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration. [...] "Even with numerous risks and uncertainties affecting the global economy, U.S. firms have been able to protect the bottom line, operating at near-record profit levels," said Graham. "By year-end 2014, U.S. firms expect return on assets to jump above 10 percent for the first time since 2007." FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #381,180 by CRConrad 9/23/13 9:48:24 AM Reply	In the "news" you hear? Get off Fox, wouldja...
Post #381,181 by boxley 9/23/13 9:51:31 AM Reply	the link was abc, don't watch fox Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,185 by CRConrad 9/23/13 9:58:12 AM Reply	No, it was something called "WSB-TV Atlanta". ("2"?) HTH! You think I'm about to go researching WTF that is? For you, who don't even know what you link to yourself? Bah, who cares. Bullshit it is. (But, knowing your refined taste in news outlets, it's probably the Georgia edition of World News Daily TV.) -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #381,179 by CRConrad 9/23/13 9:46:21 AM Reply	"plenty of good answers"?Then how come all we see is squirm?
Post #381,182 by boxley 9/23/13 9:52:01 AM Reply	dont let facts get in the way of your prejuidice Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,183 by CRConrad 9/23/13 9:53:51 AM Reply	The only fact here is that you're still squirming.
Post #381,192 by boxley 9/23/13 12:14:48 PM Reply	project much? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,195 by folkert 9/23/13 12:54:15 PM Reply	He doesn't have to, you channel. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #381,225 by CRConrad 9/24/13 12:30:18 AM Reply	Facts: Four simple questions. Five days now. That... ...adds up to: Squirm, squirm, squirm. -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #381,226 by boxley 9/24/13 1:03:21 AM Reply	Re: Facts: Four simple questions. yes they are simple as simple as "have you stopped beating your wife yet", predetermined to get the answer you desire, as I have mentioned before, I have your next meal swingin Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,228 by CRConrad 9/24/13 1:17:15 AM Reply	Difference is, they are relevant in this context, and not... ...logical fallacies like the parallel you're trying to make. If they're "predetermined to get the answer [I] desire", then that's only because "the answer [I] desire" is the truth: You WERE WRONG to proudly proclaim "Their Quote" as in any way supportive of the actual truthfulness of the thesis of that quote -- your thesis. Or are you now trying to claim that that WAS actually a logically valid argument? And the more you keep answering any old thing that comes to your mind but doesn't actually have much to do with that truth -- no, YOU suck MY dick, fuckwit! Now, how relevant() was that?!? -- in stead of just manning up and ADMIT that it was wrong to try to use that as an argument, the more evident it becomes this argument sucked. What THE FUCK are we supposed to call that, if not "squirming"? --- (): More fair, though: It is, after all, you who are in the wrong, not I, as evidenced by the fact that it is you who are doing all the squirming, not I. So start slurping, beeatch. -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #381,235 by boxley 9/24/13 8:09:22 AM Reply	I was quoting the envoy who claimed it was so you spend the next 20 years saying that one cannot quote a source for a position on a subject controlled by the quoted source. that is too stupid to respond to. Whip it out and I will show you the other side Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,236 by Another Scott 9/24/13 8:45:27 AM Reply	Re: I was quoting the envoy who claimed it was so http://health.usnews...-hospital-layoffs Ron Stiver, senior vice president of engagement and public affairs for Indiana University Health, which plans to cut 800 employees, says the assertion that health care reform is the reason behind hospital cuts is "overly simplified." IU Health is making cuts partially because of the health law, he says, but also because the state has not expanded Medicaid, the hospital system has fewer inpatient volumes, and payment rates for its services have been declining. Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., plans to cut 1,000 positions, citing an aging population, lower reimbursement rates, a reduction in National Institutes of Health grant funding and a lack of Medicaid expansion in Tennessee. In 2012 the Supreme Court ruled that state legislatures could opt out of increasing the number of people who are eligible for Medicaid, and North Carolina is one of 22 states that has done so, a decision that resulted in Vidant Pungo Hospital in Belhaven, N.C., closing down, according to hospital officials. Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel from New York, the main sponsor of the health reform bill, says organizations have several other tools they could use to reduce costs, and that many businesses are blaming health reform for actions for which they don't want to take responsibility. "U.S. health costs have been the highest in the world, yet our quality measures were middling at best," he says. "While there is no doubt that [health reform] has helped slow health care cost growth, which is beneficial to both national and household budgets, there is nothing in the law that tells hospitals to reduce staff. The fact is that patients are paying less, not more, as a result of the [health law]." The Office of the Actuary for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services predicted that decreases like these would occur, stating in a 2010 memo that by 2019 it expected hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and home health agencies would undergo a 15 percent reduction. I blame Obummer. :-/ Cheers, Scott.
Post #381,239 by boxley 9/24/13 9:07:37 AM Reply	am I allowed to quote Rangel? He is a dem and how about The Office of the Actuary for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services? "U.S. health costs have been the highest in the world, yet our quality measures were middling at best," he says. "While there is no doubt that [health reform] has helped slow health care cost growth, which is beneficial to both national and household budgets, there is nothing in the law that tells hospitals to reduce staff. The fact is that patients are paying less, not more, as a result of the [health law]." The Office of the Actuary for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services predicted that decreases like these would occur, stating in a 2010 memo that by 2019 it expected hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and home health agencies would undergo a 15 percent reduction. the law sez they will get 15% less money, So they use layoffs to recoup some of those losses. Somehow what these people are saying isn't true. Unpossible! Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,242 by drook 9/24/13 10:00:04 AM Reply	Picking that apart "... payment rates have been declining ..." The "book" value for an ER visit - which no one except the uninsured is expected to actually pay - is increased by 25%. Insurance companies continue paying what they always have. The uninsured declare bankruptcy more often. Hospitals report "payment rates have been declining". "... fewer inpatient volumes ..." More procedures are being done outpatient because insurance companies won't pay for overnight stays on procedures that used to require them, because the book price of overnight stays has gone up so much. "... state has not expanded Medicaid ..." Republicans want Obama to fail, so they want healthcare reform to fail, so they take the least attractive option available under the law. Yup, all Obamacare's fault. -- Drew
Post #381,243 by boxley 9/24/13 10:10:49 AM Reply	not for profit hospitals are republicans? good to know Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,245 by drook 9/24/13 10:31:17 AM Reply	I only mentioned Republicans when addressing Medicaid The state chose not to expand it. Not sure how not for profit hospitals made that decision for them. And by the way, you do know "not for profit" is a sad joke when it comes to hospitals, right? -- Drew
Post #381,249 by boxley 9/24/13 12:28:08 PM Reply	not for profit means you dont have to pay taxes, Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,250 by drook 9/24/13 12:34:07 PM Reply	Which has what to do with Republicans or Medicaid? -- Drew
Post #381,251 by mmoffitt 9/24/13 12:46:56 PM Reply	Republicans, of course. ;0)
Post #381,255 by folkert 9/24/13 1:17:29 PM Reply	BENGHAZI! ACORN! IRS! SOLYNDRA! etal... -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #381,257 by boxley 9/24/13 1:21:56 PM Reply	SOLYNDRA got 1 billion for a small donation to Barry not bad Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,258 by Another Scott 9/24/13 1:38:20 PM Reply	You know that was Bush's program, right? http://www.nydailyne...article-1.1154467 I even picked a source you may like, nice fellow that I am. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #381,260 by drook 9/24/13 1:54:58 PM Reply	Right in the first line ... $535 million federal loan ... That's not a billion. So even if you're going to try to hang ... something ... on Obama, your outrage is off by more than 85%. -- Drew
Post #381,262 by boxley 9/24/13 2:03:29 PM Reply	not the loan, the tax credits http://washingtonexa...y/article/2536031 Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,264 by folkert 9/24/13 2:19:49 PM Reply	Oh... to offset the... More than $1B investors put in. I get it. Replublicans always get their money. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #381,272 by boxley 9/24/13 4:20:57 PM Reply	crony capitalism works both sides of the aisle Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,263 by boxley 9/24/13 2:04:30 PM Reply	the loan mods came after he left office Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,237 by CRConrad 9/24/13 9:05:00 AM Reply	Yes, in support of your claim that it is actually so. Like this: "No, BOx, cigarettes aren't good for you." -- "Oh yes they are! Look: Philip Morris says cigarettes are good for your health!" Your source being in the "health-care" BUSINESS does not, as you STILL seem to be imagining (How the...?!?), mean that they're a valid authority on the subject; on the contrary, it means anything they say is liable to be said in order to further their business interests, and therefore LESS likely to be true, not more. Further: Was the discussion about universal health care, or was it about what the Cleveland Clinic thinks of universal health care? Yes, of course you can use what the Cleveland Clinic says as a valid source for what the Cleveland Clinic says... Which, as far as I can figure it out, seems to be what your "quote a source for a position on a subject controlled by the quoted source" gibberish means. But who gives a fuck?!? That was never the issue! The issue was, and still is, that you used -- you TRIED to use, until I called you on it -- the fact THAT the Cleveland Clinic said something as "proof" that WHAT you and the Cleveland Clinic said is true. It just isn't. THAT is the logical fallacy here. And it's now been five days that you've refused to admit this simple incontrovertible fact. In stead, you're back to your original fallacy, claiming that what you quote is the actual quote of what they actually said, and I'm an idiot for arguing against that. Uh... No, BOx, I'm not an idiot. I know very well that you can quote the Cleveland Clinic as a valid source to the Cleveland Clinic's position on this (and any) subject; this is trivially true, and I never said otherwise. But we weren't discussing whether the Cleveland Clinic's position on the subject of universal health care that you reported is actually the Cleveland Clinic's genuine position on the subject of universal health care. That's a fucking given, ever since you first reported it. What we were discussing was in stead "But they're wrong, because..." vs "No, they're right, because..."; i.e, whether that reported position is a VALID position. In that discussion, "But they actually said it!" proves BUPKES. Five days, culminating in that "one cannot quote a source for a position on a subject controlled by the quoted source" blather, umpteen reprises of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Hey, have you, eh?", and about as many of some convoluted fashion of saying "blow me" by way of some obscure Jack Nicholson quote. What the FUCK is that all, if not the very bloody text-book definition of squirming? Squirm, squirm, squirm, squirm, squirm, squirm... You gonna start a new round, and come back here -- to the starting point -- again in another week's time? Go ahead, Weasel Boy. I'll be waiting for you. Or man up and admit that "Their actual quote!" IS NOT proof of what that quote actually says. (My ten-year-old would have admitted that by day two, at the latest.) -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #381,240 by boxley 9/24/13 9:14:34 AM Reply	Re: Yes, in support of your claim that it is actually so. What we were discussing was in stead "But they're wrong, because..." vs "No, they're right, because..."; i.e, whether that reported position is a VALID position no, you are the wiggling squirmer who will accept zero possibility that the affordable care act is a law that has some expensive side effects that diliberately cause financial pain to those least able to afford it. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,265 by CRConrad 9/24/13 2:20:30 PM Reply	The sub-thread I started from your "Their quote!" post is... ...about whether "Their quote!" is a valid argument. What you're trying to wriggle it into here is a subject for some other branch of this discussion -- my poor little brain is too single-track to be able to go on before you've answered the four little questions (about the argument's validity, remember?) I asked you going on six days ago. Also, since it was I who questioned you, logically I CANNOT be the one who is squirming here. You, OTOH... Well, what do you think the post I'm replying to here looks like? -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #381,273 by boxley 9/24/13 4:23:39 PM Reply	looks like some one is not going to take troll bait while your post looks like a nightcrawler evading a crappie Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,280 by CRConrad 9/24/13 5:10:09 PM Reply	Oh lovely: More squirming, and it's in gibberish.
Post #381,310 by boxley 9/26/13 8:56:26 AM Reply	Oh, the english speaker wh has never gone fishing? neat Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,316 by CRConrad 9/26/13 4:25:10 PM Reply	What's it now, six days?
Post #381,317 by boxley 9/26/13 4:46:17 PM Reply	don't hold your breath Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,327 by CRConrad 9/27/13 2:19:13 AM 9/27/13 9:14:57 AM Reply	Right you are, Greg; thanks, fixed. So, after EIGHT days now, you still haven't answered these four little questions, Bill: * Do you, or do you not, know that fat-cat capitalists like to cut down on wages to increase their own profits? * Have you, or have you not, often opined to that effect here? * Are American entrepreneurs and CxO-level executives, or are they not, just as prone to lie as you or I, or for that matter as President Obama? * So is "Their Own Quote!", or is it not, fucking useless as an argument when it comes to establishing the _truth_ of that quote? I mean, come on: It's one thing to be slow-witted, but this is on another scale entirely... Answers on a postcard, please. (And no, we won't be blaming the evil gubmint-run US Mail for how late they are, now will we...?) EIGHT days. Why won't you answer? What's _wrong_ with these questions?!? And no, they're NOT unanswerable logical fallacies like "Have you quit beating your wife yet?". They're each and every one of them open to perfectly valid "Yes" answers, and equally open to perfectly valid "No" answers (only not if one at the same time wants to make other and logically opposed claims). In fact, I think I know what's wrong: If you answer them honestly, in the affirmative on all four as we all know to be the case, they logically demonstrate that your argument was bad, wrong, invalid. SO WHAT!? Are you REALLY not man enough to say "Yup, got me there, I was wrong.", even when it's so obvious to everyone anyway that you were? Why not? Do you think your obstinacy makes you look bigger, or more in the right? One would think you'd realise it only makes you look worse the longer it goes on; that the best thing would be to get it over with and ADMIT YOU _W_E_R_E_ _W_R_O_N_G_. Or do you have yet another reason to defend your silly "Their quote!" argument? Stay tuned, folks, for another exciting week of BOxlish squirm-dancing! To be continued...(?) Edited by CRConrad Sept. 27, 2013, 09:14:57 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #381,332 by folkert 9/27/13 8:28:56 AM 9/28/13 3:25:08 PM Reply	Thanks for fixing it. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec Edited by folkert Sept. 28, 2013, 03:25:08 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #381,372 by Ashton 9/28/13 2:57:22 PM Reply	Stubborn is as stubborn does (rocks are ... like that, too)
Post #381,379 by boxley 9/28/13 5:47:02 PM Reply	Re: Right you are, Greg; thanks, fixed. * Do you, or do you not, know that fat-cat capitalists like to cut down on wages to increase their own profits? * Do you, iclude AFLCIO SEIU and other Unions who dislike the law as well? * Have you, or have you not, often opined to that effect here? * I have expressed an opinion on many things both pro and con on corporate governance in the market place. * Are American entrepreneurs and CxO-level executives, or are they not, just as prone to lie as you or I, or for that matter as President Obama? * Preident Obama does in fact lie as much to the American people as CxO level executives, why should I answer a question that is immaterial to the discussion? * So is "Their Own Quote!", or is it not, fucking useless as an argument when it comes to establishing the _truth_ of that quote? * If Obama and his minions lie as much as corporate exec's then quoting the government's opinion of the law is just as fucking useless as quoting chief execs on the effect of the law. So anythig you opine from the side of the impositioner in Chief is a fucking lie and useless in advancing your argument. Anything else I can help you understand today? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,380 by Ashton 9/28/13 6:42:01 PM Reply	Ah.. the Everything-depends<-on->everything-Else.. ploy.
Post #381,381 by boxley 9/28/13 7:08:42 PM 9/28/13 7:09:46 PM Reply	that depends Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep Edited by boxley Sept. 28, 2013, 07:09:46 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #381,384 by Another Scott 9/28/13 7:34:25 PM Reply	rofl.
Post #381,385 by CRConrad 9/28/13 8:06:13 PM Reply	Is the concept "yes or no" really that difficult?
Post #381,387 by boxley 9/28/13 8:32:07 PM Reply	: Is the concept "not using a logical fallacy" hard for you? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,395 by CRConrad 9/29/13 11:18:05 AM Reply	Reading is apparently too hard for you: NOT a fallacy. As I explained several days ago. -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #381,441 by boxley 9/30/13 8:58:19 PM Reply	deductive fallacy is the formal name for your questions Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,446 by CRConrad 10/1/13 1:13:37 AM Reply	Explain as if I were ten: How, exactly, are they so? When you try to explain it in simple terms you'll probably see that they aren't. -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #381,451 by boxley 10/1/13 7:51:38 AM Reply	Re: Explain as if I were ten: How, exactly, are they so? you started with It's not like they'd love to have somebody else to shift the blame onto when they cut down on staff, now is it? Oh, sorry, I forgot -- they're not Obama, and of course everyone but him always tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth! Holy shee-ittt, man, are you REALLY so stupid that you believe "their quote" is in any way a valid argument?!? lets see, assertion followed by invalidation of any argument but your own, classic definition Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,457 by CRConrad 10/1/13 9:53:15 AM Reply	That's not the argument we were arguing about, now is it? That's the short version, and since you didn't seem to understand that, I expanded it into the more-easily-followed four questions you've been avoiding -- in this thread that is directly descended from them -- for eight days now. Explain slowly how THEY are "a logical fallacy" and akin to "have you quit beating your wife yet", and then maybe we'll be able to get back to this more compact version. You don't get to skip any steps; you're too much of a squirmer for that, you'd only try to take advantage. (Now surely you can't deny that THAT is a reasonable caution, given how long this has taken and we've STILL not got any answers from you?) -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #381,461 by pwhysall 10/1/13 10:30:34 AM Reply	Right, timeout This is doing my head in. Can you two please restate your positions, preferably in a new thread, because I'm fucking lost, here.
Post #381,475 by boxley 10/1/13 11:57:33 AM Reply	no, we are still right shifting and there is no argument Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,476 by boxley 10/1/13 12:01:01 PM Reply	Re: That's not the argument we were arguing about, now is it * Do you, or do you not, know that fat-cat capitalists like to cut down on wages to increase their own profits? assertion followed by logical fsllacy * Have you, or have you not, often opined to that effect here? not to you logical fallacy * Are American entrepreneurs and CxO-level executives, or are they not, just as prone to lie as you or I, or for that matter as President Obama? answered several posts up * So is "Their Own Quote!", or is it not, fucking useless as an argument when it comes to establishing the _truth_ of that quote? assertion followed by logical fallacy from the assertion Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,478 by drook 10/1/13 12:13:35 PM Reply	Dude ... The first you have the slightest bit of a point. Yes, as phrased it assumes that "fat-cat capitalists like to cut down on wages to increase their own profits". Instead of criticizing the form of the question you could say whether you believe that assumption is true or false. The second, okay, someone would have to dig through your posts for an example. Won't change the outcome though. The third, your answer seems to be, "If politicians and business leaders are equally guilty of lying, you can't call business leaders on it." Which doesn't address the specific question of whether you believe business leaders do, in fact, lie as much as politicians. The fourth, that's not an assertion it's a question. Yes, it clearly is based on the belief that the answer is obvious, but if you think it's not you could say "no". Then of course you can explain why their quote is useful in establishing the truth of their position. -- Drew
Post #381,479 by folkert 10/1/13 12:38:05 PM Reply	You are doing his work for him! -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #381,490 by CRConrad 10/1/13 3:03:52 PM Reply	Naah, relax, Greg -- DrooK's doing my job for me.
Post #381,491 by boxley 10/1/13 3:52:04 PM Reply	why should I support his logical fallacies? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,492 by drook 10/1/13 3:54:16 PM Reply	Which ones? I don't see any, as I just explained. Repeating yourself doesn't clarify anything. -- Drew
Post #381,496 by Ashton 10/1/13 4:37:42 PM Reply	A learning experience is one of those things that says, "You know that thing you just did? Don't do that." -- Douglas Adams
Post #381,501 by boxley 10/1/13 6:40:38 PM Reply	Re: Which ones? I don't see any, as I just explained. The first you have the slightest bit of a point. Yes, as phrased it assumes that "fat-cat capitalists like to cut down on wages to increase their own profits". Instead of criticizing the form of the question you could say whether you believe that assumption is true or false. Why should I answer a construct based on an assuption followed by a forced conclusion? You claim you cant see that. No issues The second, okay, someone would have to dig through your posts for an example. Won't change the outcome though. Out of scope The third, your answer seems to be, "If politicians and business leaders are equally guilty of lying, you can't call business leaders on it." Which doesn't address the specific question of whether you believe business leaders do, in fact, lie as much as politicians. Why, in the above statement you don't accept that there is an assertion but insist I either support or explain why I don't support the assertion. The fourth, that's not an assertion it's a question. Yes, it clearly is based on the belief that the answer is obvious, but if you think it's not you could say "no". Then of course you can explain why their quote is useful in establishing the truth of their position. bolded part is a classic forced conclution such as "when did you stop beating your wife" Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,503 by drook 10/1/13 7:54:13 PM Reply	Fine You want to focus on the form of the questions. Maybe if I restate them we can address the content: 1. Would you say business leaders never/rarely/sometimes/frequently/always reduce salaries if they believe it will boost profits? 2. Would you say business leaders in general are more or less truthful than politicians? If "about the same", are the two groups in general more often honest or more often dishonest? 3. Would you say official statements of a company's position made by their executives and/or official spokespeople are more likely to be an accurate reflection of their behind-closed-doors position, calculated to portray the company in the most positive light, or something else? I'm trying really hard to put these as neutrally as I can. If you think I'm still assuming the conclusion, please show how you would ask those questions without assuming the answer. -- Drew
Post #381,505 by boxley 10/1/13 9:36:49 PM Reply	Re: Fine 1. Would you say business leaders never/rarely/sometimes/frequently/always reduce salaries if they believe it will boost profits? only if it will keep production and quality of the product at the same or better than before staff cuts. Assuming that they understand the business process. 2. Would you say business leaders in general are more or less truthful than politicians? If "about the same", are the two groups in general more often honest or more often dishonest? about the same when it comes to defending their own interests. 3. Would you say official statements of a company's position made by their executives and/or official spokespeople are more likely to be an accurate reflection of their behind-closed-doors position, calculated to portray the company in the most positive light, or something else? Any public statement of a publically traded company has to accurately portray what can be proved to public oversight such as the SEC FCC etc. They are also beholden to their stockholders who are inclined to sue if false statements are made by senior management. In the case of a privately held label they need to take care of their brand so also must be careful when they are making public statements. The same measures of veracity do not apply to government officials to whom their supporters will believe any thing they say, they opponants will always believe that they are being facile in their statements. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,516 by drook 10/2/13 7:11:54 AM Reply	Finally Twelve days of pulling teeth and you finally deign to address the content of the questions. And guess what? It's not just about you opposing the other side because they're on the other side, you actually have a position that I can disagree with. (Two of them, actually.) only if it will keep production and quality of the product at the same or better than before staff cuts. Assuming that they understand the business process. First, I've seen plenty of examples where CEOs don't seem to understand the business process of the companies they're running. But beyond that, I suspect most of them don't give a shit about the quality of the product, so long as it keeps selling. And both driving your competition out of business and a good ad campaign can be cheaper than improving your quality. Any public statement of a publically traded company has to accurately portray what can be proved to public oversight such as the SEC FCC etc. More like what can't be disproved. And when it comes to the SEC, the difference between those two is HUGE. They are also beholden to their stockholders who are inclined to sue if false statements are made by senior management. [snip] The same measures of veracity do not apply to government officials to whom their supporters will believe any thing they say, they opponants will always believe that they are being facile in their statements. So it's not that business leaders are more or less honest than politicians, it's that voters are more gullible than stockholders? The only way to make any sense of that is if you believe that having enough money to be a stockholder proves you are smarter than people who don't invest in stocks. So, your two positions seem to be: 1. Corporate executives and spokespeople must be telling the truth about why they do what they do because the SEC tells them to. 2. Stockholders are smarter than voters. -- Drew
Post #381,520 by boxley 10/2/13 8:12:02 AM Reply	not finally at all you did not demand yes or no answers and I note you immediately used my answers to construct 2 positions you know damn well are not mine and assign them to me Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,521 by drook 10/2/13 8:29:45 AM 10/2/13 11:24:07 AM Reply	No, I don't know that That's what you said. If that's not what you meant, say something else. [edit] Longer: A sense of the sacred makes effective action easier, by simplifying all decision-making. When there is a healthy sense of the sacred around work being done, ideas tend to be evaluated based first on whether they come from people in the tribe (those who share your sense of the sacred and can therefore be trusted completely) and next by whether or not they understand and respect operating distinctions between the sacred and profane. People who pass the Âone of usÂ and sacred/profane tests get a free pass to argue informally with a lowered level of rigor, while those who donÂt face unreasonable burdens of proof before being heard. To use Daniel KahnemannÂs terms, insiders can get away with System 1 thinking (loose, fast and associative/narrative), while outsiders are required to prove their points with System 2 thinking (tight, slow and deliberative). http://www.ribbonfar...th-in-consulting/ This just came up in my feed reader today, and seems relevant to this thread. It's clear that we're arguing from different premises, and I've been trying to figure out what you hold sacred. At first glance it seems like your premise is that business leaders are more trustworthy than politicians, or at least no worse. When challenged on that you (eventually) say that it's not that they're inherently more honest, they are simply acting rationally within an environment where they have more constraints on what they can say. That's the "sacred" idea that I disagree with. I don't think that the SEC is an effective counterweight to the extraordinary financial gain available via gaming the system. And I don't think that stockholders are generally better-informed or more willing (or able) to vote out a CEO than voters are to vote out a politician. Further, I believe business leaders also don't think the SEC is a viable thread. But you could show me that I'm wrong. There are 535 members of Congress and 500 Fortune 500 CEOs. In the last 25 years, how many CEOs have been voted out of power by stockholders? How many congressmen lost reelection bids? How many CEOs sanctioned or imprisoned for SEC violations? How many congressmen expelled or imprisoned for impropriety? -- Drew Edited by drook Oct. 2, 2013, 11:24:07 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #381,529 by Ashton 10/2/13 3:44:42 PM Reply	Beyond the Call of Duty: +11 Nice metaphor.. better than Nice, actually.. This thread has been Boehner/profane -VS- every attempt to find out W.T.F. Box [thinks? he..] Stands for/against. (Hell, on damn-near Every topic: that.) As in: In all those years ... ... I never/Ever got a reply from Beep, to the simple (but not simplistic) Question: Er, just what Is It that (you) 'Want to Conserve' ?? Will take Sacred over gaming-the-System-of-Language.. every time:-/ Punctiliousness in small details of Boolean: belongs in *nix script-writing, not in clear expository writing-composition.
Post #381,535 by boxley 10/2/13 8:53:53 PM 10/3/13 1:19:42 AM Reply	late but will try to answer This just came up in my feed reader today, and seems relevant to this thread. It's clear that we're arguing from different premises, and I've been trying to figure out what you hold sacred. At first glance it seems like your premise is that business leaders are more trustworthy than politicians, or at least no worse. When challenged on that you (eventually) say that it's not that they're inherently more honest, they are simply acting rationally within an environment where they have more constraints on what they can say. That's the "sacred" idea that I disagree with. I don't think that the SEC is an effective counterweight to the extraordinary financial gain available via gaming the system. And I don't think that stockholders are generally better-informed or more willing (or able) to vote out a CEO than voters are to vote out a politician. Further, I believe business leaders also don't think the SEC is a viable thread. But you could show me that I'm wrong. There are 535 members of Congress and 500 Fortune 500 CEOs. In the last 25 years, how many CEOs have been voted out of power by stockholders? How many congressmen lost reelection bids? How many CEOs sanctioned or imprisoned for SEC violations? How many congressmen expelled or imprisoned for impropriety? fully agree that the SEC is an effective counterweight. Many stckholders are also corporations, unions, government entities, and other groups of people banded together to increase their investments. Voters are individual humans. As opined by many here, the tea party are sub humans, to others the Obama phone, Obama pays my mortgage and car payment crew, and those who think that a democratic Ohio poll worker who voted for 6 other people didn't commit voter fraud are individuals. Balmer screaming that apple sucks doesn't rattle apple shareholders. Shareholders who quietly state that bill gates needs to be replaced rattles microsoft shareholders. We are talking two different dynamics here. Shareholders are not individuals, voters are.It's not who is more sacred, I have been eating sacred cows for years, its not a tribal thing, its a "ware all who claim to be YOUR advocate, and check your wallet and count your fingers when shaking hands" Now you may firmly believe that the affordable care act is business neutral and any moves by business to use that ruse to cut worker pay and benefits to better the bottom line is fine, you are entitled to that opinion. Your opinion is not a fact. The historical record in the last century has lots of examples where declaring two classes of workers one of whom is protected by all kinds of law and one who is not being disasterous for the working class. The democratic party insisted that the law go forth as is, in that fashion. Now a few years later you declare "republicansdidit" not really, it was passed by a democratically controlled house and a democratically controlled senate. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep Edited by boxley Oct. 3, 2013, 01:19:42 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #381,696 by CRConrad 10/5/13 4:25:50 PM Reply	Could you try that in the day-time, and in English, please?
Post #381,498 by CRConrad 10/1/13 5:26:42 PM Reply	You sound just as brilliant as a stuck record
Post #381,391 by drook 9/29/13 8:32:54 AM Reply	"I know you are but what am I?" Guess we've found your level of argument: 8-year-old. -- Drew
Post #381,392 by folkert 9/29/13 10:06:24 AM Reply	Ha! -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #381,133 by crazy 9/22/13 9:07:49 AM Reply	Whoa Now every group in America except poor people and maybe the communists are trying to get out of paying for this and somehow you are still in love with it. Get a clue Err. "every"? Communist? Me? I have a ridiculously high paying job in the center wall street. Finally. I also have a tax and interest and fine burden that will consume more than 65% of my pay for the next 10 years, making my "real" take home enough to live, but not live WELL. I'll go out to dinner and a show once every other month now as a target, but other than that, no extravagance. My wife packs my lunch, and I don't have "spending" money. I will have health insurance for the 1st time in 5 years in about 2 weeks, and I will pay out of pocket a LOT for it. It'll be worth it. The company kicks in about $3,000 per year, my side is around $900 a month, and it doesn't kick in until I pay at least $1,000 deductible, and then it's 80/20, and I better be able to pay the 20. A chunk of my taxes will now go to supporting some type of universal health care for those that do not have it. People who have been priced out of the "market". People with previous conditions that simply couldn't get it. People like I was. It'll be worth it.
Post #381,142 by boxley 9/22/13 10:53:03 AM Reply	A chunk of my taxes go to the same things Standing in line watching a young lady with kids use an ebt card to pay for a lot of healthy food. The guy in front of we kvetches about his high taxes and moochers. I asked him how much he made a week. (not a lot) I told him I pay more in taxes every week than he made and it doesnt bother me any. Kids gotta eat. He shuddup Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,143 by Another Scott 9/22/13 10:58:06 AM Reply	:-)
Post #381,163 by crazy 9/22/13 4:32:57 PM Reply	And at this point I can probably make the same comment to you.
Post #381,166 by boxley 9/22/13 4:46:36 PM Reply	anyone making minimum wage can claim that to me today. Dont owe any taxes until I make a profit, that starts this month hopefully Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep

Welcome to IWETHEY!